Talk:Isle of Mull

Opening comment

The area is given in hectares, but the Skye article gives its area in square kilometres. Is there a policy?Manormadman (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

There is no policy. The convention is to use hectares but there is no reason I can think of not to use km2 for larger islands. Ben MacDui 14:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename

To be consistent this article should be moved to Mull, Scotland. Its name is not "Isle of Mull" anymore than "Glasgow" is the "City of Glasgow". Ben MacDui 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I live on Mull and would expect "Isle of Mull" but also see your point.

Also I wrote the Harry Potter thing something like 4+ years ago (I originally added all the movie references, traffic routes and rally info). The HP reference is currently totally inaccurate and an absolute lie due to some kind of editing version of Chinese whispers (which I increasingly see on WP as the years go by). It should probably be removed. 217.43.10.9 (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)KM

I am proposing that this page be moved to "Mull" as it would appear to have primacy. "Mull" as it stands would be moved to Mull (disambiguation), currently a redirect to "Mull". Ben MacDui 08:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It will need to be moved to Mull, Scotland, as Mull exists as a disambiguation page. Or, Mull could be moved to Mull (disambiguation) and Isle of Mull could go to Mull with a disambiguation hatnote. Thoughts? --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 09:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Move this to Mull and the disambiguation page to (disambiguation). We don't have an article called Mull (something) or Mull, Something so there's nothing to disambiguate in the strictest sense. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we separate out the issues:-

1. dab page at Mull (disambiguation) rather than Mull;
2. island article name: Mull, Isle of Mull, Mull, Scotland or Mull (island);
3. Category names to match article.

The second is the contentious one. I feel the island article should remain at Isle of Mull. Finavon (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the analysis. "Isle of Mull" is certainly easier to guess than "Mull, xx", but its not clear to me why you'd prefer "Isle of Mull" to "Mull". These names are only used where the name is the most common usage e.g. Isle of May or if some dab need e.g. "Isle of Arran" - its not "Isle of Gigha", "Isle of Westray" etc. Ben MacDui 16:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is not Isle of Westray, but it is "Isle of Gigha"[1], "Isle of Bute"[2][3] and "Isle of Arran"[4]. All these can be shortened and the choice needs to be based on what is least confusing and easy to find. A dab page is likely to be used from the other. Finavon (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up the dab page at Mull, moving the island to first place in the list and decanting the etymology of the promontories to a new Mull (geographical term). I did this after looking for the island as "Mull" and find the dab page less than ideal. You (Isle of) Mull experts might like to have a look and/or comment. PamD (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work - the pre-existing dab page was way out of order. Ben MacDui 14:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3 way split re naming

As I see it there are 3 possibilities:

1. Status quo - island article is named Isle of Mull, Mull is disambiguation page, Mull (disambiguation) is redirect to the dab page.
2. Keep island at Isle of Mull (ie the common name of the island is "Isle of Mull"), but also accept that the island is the primary usage of "Mull": make Mull into a redirect to the island article, with a hatnote pointing to Mull (disambiguation) which is the dab page currently at Mull.
3. Move island to Mull, with redirect hatnote to Mull (disambiguation), and redirect Isle of Mull to Mull.

We need to answer two questions:

• What title ought the article on the island to have?
• Is there a primary usage for the word "Mull" (and, if so, is it the island)?

I reckon that the island (best known as "Isle of Mull") is probably also the primary usage for "Mull", so would have been WP:BOLD and moved the dab page to Mull (disambiguation) (making a redirect from "Mull" to Isle of Mull as in 2nd option above), but I see it has an edit history so that wouldn't work without going to WP:RM, so I'll invite comments here before doing that. Any thoughts?

I don't think it is a big deal, and:

• Primary usage - the first five pages of my ghits are all about the island of Mull in one guise or another. In Scotland at least if I said "I am going to Mull for the weekend" I can't imagine many people would reply "which one"?
• There is no doubt that many people refer to "the Isle of Mull" but that does not make it the island's name. Here are a few sources:

Haswell-Smith, Hamish (2004). The Scottish Islands. Edinburgh: Canongate. ISBN 978-1-84195-454-7.: Section 3.3 - "Mull"

Murray, W.H. (1966) The Hebrides. London. Heinemann: Chapter 10 - "Mull".

Johnstone et al (1990) The Corbetts. SMC. p. 228 "the island of Mull".

These are just the first three I picked up and the next two books were the same. Of the websites, of course any number refer to the "Isle of Mull" - but by and large they are selling the romantic notion of an island and/or providing a form of disambiguation rather than attempting a definitive naming. (The "Mull Railway" might conceivably be in one of several places, but the "Isle of Mull Railway" ensures there is no doubt). In short of the options described above: I prefer 3 (although I think you mean a "hatnote for Mull (disambiguation)" rather than a redirect); then 2; then 1. Ben MacDui 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I favour option 1, with your significant improvement to "Mull". Common usage "Isle of Mull" for the island; "Mull" as a headland, but in context, the island. It is fine to drop "Isle of.." when it does not introduce ambiguity. That is not the case with Mull, even if it is usually possible to work out where is meant. The OS gazetteer lists 18 Mulls. That does not include the island, which they show as "Isle of Mull" and "Island of Mull". Their simple "Mull" is the Mull of Kintyre! Finavon (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I fear that the OS must have been infiltrated by single ladies of a certain age. Ben MacDui 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the headland to which they attach the name, not the whole peninsula. Finavon (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move Mull to Mull (disambiguation)

I've just made a formal WP:RM for this, after inconclusive discussion here. PamD (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Isle of Mull → Mull — Now that we have established that the island is the primary meaning of "Mull", the prefix "Isle of" is unnecessary. Most Scottish islands do not have this prefix. The only one I am aware of is Isle of Arran, and that is to disambiguate it from some Irish islands with similar names. "Isle" is not particularly common idiom, "island" is more common. PatGallacher (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Primary meaning of "Mull" is not the same as the primary name for the island, which I maintain should still be "Isle of Mull". This avoids all confusion. Other examples are Isle of Bute and Isle of Gigha, so may be a term used in (current) Argyll and Bute. Finavon (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Primary meaning is definitely Mull and I'd hazard a guess that it's even primary usage. There is no reason why a redirect from Isle of Mull shouldn't catch those few that might come via that route. As for Gigha, I'd also support moving that to just Gigha but that's not the issue here. Bute I think is a much more difficult place to determine primacy of any given Bute. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the above, including comments higher up the page, espec. this dif re sources. The article is just Gigha btw. It is Isle of Bute, but as suggested this is essentially for disambig. reasons. Ben MacDui 08:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Royal Mail followed local opinion a few years ago and the correct "Post Towns" for addresses on those islands are "Isle of Bute", "Isle of Gigha" and "Isle of Mull". There is a need to avoid ambiguity on WP, but can we please do that without ignoring local usage. Finavon (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the List of post towns in the United Kingdom, I see that they use "Isle of" consistenly for all Scottish islands, including e.g. Isle of North Uist, Isle of Barra, which we do not have, and nobody has suggested we use consistently. The post office is entitled to its own naming conventions, but I am not sure that they are consistently based on local opinion, we are not automatically obliged to follow them. The only other cases where Wikipedia uses "Isle of" is where the island is not the primary meaning (e.g. Arran, Bute (although even there there is a tenable case that they should be). PatGallacher (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure the postal use is particularly relevant here. I seem to recall the change was made because the locals preferred the island name to the county name (or region, district or unitary authority name). I'd have throught the primary use of Mull would be to mull over a thought, but we don't have an article on that. There is an argument that it would be the geographical feature, but as that is simply a derivation from Gaelic, that would surely redirect to Peninsula, which for some strange reason redirects to List of peninsulas {surely there should be an article on the geographic feature itself!). Skinsmoke (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on comment: The previous discussion at Talk:Mull_(disambiguation) which agreed to move Mull to Mull (disambiguation) and allow Mull to redirect to Isle of Mull agreed that the island is the primary usage of "Mull". The discussion here is whether "Mull" or "Isle of Mull" is the most common name for the island and should therefore be the title of the article about the island. Different discussion. PamD (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is far from clear that this is in fact the primary use of Mull. Isle of Mull is rather clear, accurate and unambiguous. The fact that it gets 422,000 google hits helps make the case that this is the common name if not a common name for the isle. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - did you mean "a common name if not the common name"? It is certainly commonly used on commercial websites. It may be unambiguous, but if you could point to scholarly articles, geography books etc. that describe it so that would be more persuasive. Ben MacDui 08:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Mull is a common english word and 'isle of Mull' is a relatively unknown island (outside the British Isles, I suppose). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Question - in the above objections, when you talk about "common word" do you actually mean a common noun or do you actually mean common in the sense of "frequently used"? Akerbeltz (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Frequently used. --RegentsPark (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, next question in that case: on what basis do you claim that "mull" is a commonly used English word on its own in any context but talking about the island? I'm mostly curious, as in spite of living on the west coast not being able to recall having heard that type of usage, not even in Gaelic.

One 'mulls over' stuff (thinks about, ruminates, etc.). As, for example, in this recent headline. It is a word in the English language, not Gaelic. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah but that's not relevant here, bearing in mind Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a guideline that indicates we should not have articles on dictionary words. However, when a word is common, and the non-dictionary usage is uncommon, we should disambiguate the word adequately so that we don't mislead people searching for the word rather than the island. Thus, a disambiguation page should point to a wiktionary entry as well as to the isle of mull. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Looks like we're stuck with Isle of Mull then. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Having asked that, there is a more pressing problem with using Mull as the page for the island that just occurred to me, having come back from the bookbinder. The gauze they use on the spines of books is called "mull" - for which there is not page on wikipedia actually. Would a common noun normally take precedence over a place names? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

An earlier version of the dab page had an entry for that usage, but as the word "mull" is not used anywhere in the article on bookbinding, or anywhere else on WP in that sense as far as I can see, I removed that entry. If the article gets written sometime, I suggest Mull (textile) would be an appropriate title. No, I don't think that a grammatically "common" but relatively uncommon use would take priority over a placename. But, as discussed above, this is the wrong discussion. It's already been agreed to move the dab page and let Mull redirect to the island article. What's under discussion here is whether the island article should be at Mull or Isle of Mull. Different discussion. PamD (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of prior discussion, and no offense to the residents of the isle, I don't really see the island as the primary topic in this case. A simple google search for Mull reveals, restricting myself to the first page, 4 dictionary entries for the word 'mull', 3 news items that use the word 'mull' in the headline, 4 gentlemen with the last name 'Mull', 1 youtube entry for a song 'Mull of Kintyre' (presumably connected to the island), and 1 entry for the island - which is none other than our own wikipedia entry. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:DoctorJoeE

I don't want to get into an edit war over this: lostfort.blogspot.com is not a reliable source; neither is shipmodeling.net. I've posted my references, maybe you've seen the article on the ship, what is the problem?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear on the ship names floating around. There was no Spanish ship named the Florida; the Florencia made it back to port safely; and there were at least nine ships in the fleet with the name San Juan. The Tobermory ship was apparently named by the Spanish as Santa Maria de Gracia y san Jan Bautista, but it is known as the San Juan de Silicia to differentiate it from the other ships in the Armada that were named after St John the Baptist.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be too late for that -- you've already reverted twice without justification. You removed content without explaining why. The proper Wikipedia procedure is to add new content to what is already there. I tried to fix what you did by incorporating your new content and references into the existing content, but you reverted it back to your version of events. Why do you insist on removing another version of the story, when there is clear evidence in the literature that there is dispute about which ship was involved, and what actually happened, and even what name the ship carried? Also, your say-so is not sufficient to brand a source as "unreliable" -- I don't see anything on those sites that fits the Wikipedia definition of "unreliable." So unless you can provide a much better reason for removing properly referenced content, I'm going to put it back. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the applicable guideline violation, eliminating all versions except the one you favor constitutes adding commentary or your own personal analysis, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that your version of events is correct, both versions need to be in the article. And since the only thing everyone seems to agree on re: this incident is that nobody knows exactly what happened, I don't think you're going to be able to do that. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a subject with which I am familiar, but Brian's references seem rather more credible than lostfort.blogspot.com (which would probably be subject to bot removal anyway). If there are genuinely credible sources that assert alternatives then by all means add either a sentence or two, or perhaps a "Note" (see e.g. List of Outer Hebrides#References and footnotes). Ben MacDui 16:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on "my source is more credible than your source." Sources are either valid or they are not. The cited sources have been in the article for a long time, untouched by any bots. Since Brianann MacAmhlaidh removed them, the burden is on him or her to show that they are not credible, other than just saying so. And if such proof is not provided, I will put them back in. Also, since the new references are in print, and not online, it is difficult to verify that they back up his or her contention that that version of the tale is true, to the exclusion of all other versions. I hope I can find some time to get to the library and look them up. I also object to the rewrite itself, which is not particularly well-written, and eliminates references to the treasure and other important details. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of further discussion, I am restoring the content that was deleted. As a reminder, I am not removing anything Brianann MacAmhlaidh added, simply restoring the content that was removed without adequate explanation. DoctorJoeE (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

.. and in the absence of any genuine agreement on the subject I have undone this. I will attempt some sort of compromise solution in due course but unfortunately I have no time right now. Ben MacDui 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense -- no one ever provided any justification for removing the previous content, so I added it back, while retaining the new content. That's a compromise. If you want to change the content in the future, you should work from all versions of the story, not just the one favored by one editor. DoctorJoeE (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Florida never existed, and the Florencia made it home, why exactly are we mentioning them as if they are both legitimate candidates for the identity of the sunken ship? Why are we using random websites and blogs, and uncritically treating them as equal to published books on the Armada? The couple books I got out of the library all gave the ship's identity as the San Juan de Silicia, they show how the other theories are out-dated and wrong - that's why I want that stuff removed. We're supposed to choose the best sources available to us and follow them. It's not an improvement to include every nugget of out-dated information into an article and treat it as equal to the current understanding of a particular topic. It's not a compromise to treat everything as equal and legitimate if our sources don't. That's my problem with 'your version'.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional External Links Requests

Is it possible to add two additional external links to this page? These are :

Tobermory Harbour Association - www.tobermoryharbour.co.uk

Tobermory Golf Club - www.tobermorygolfclub.com

I think these could be useful links for information to the social and professional visitors. 81.136.141.237 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)